Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35960406›Full record

Article3D printing in medicine2022

Evaluating surface coatings to reduce bone cement adhesion to point of care 3D printed molds in the intraoperative setting.

Brian Beitler, Gregory R Roytman, Grace Parmer, Steven M Tommasini, Daniel H Wiznia

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in 3D printing in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 46% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [3D printing/implants in traumatology].Unfallchirurgie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brian BeitlerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, 800 Howard Ave 1st Floor, New Haven, CT, 06519, USA. brian.beitler@yale.edu.
Gregory R RoytmanDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, 800 Howard Ave 1st Floor, New Haven, CT, 06519, USA.
Grace ParmerDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Yale School of Engineering and Applied Science, Yale University, 17 Hillhouse Ave, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA.
Steven M TommasiniDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, 800 Howard Ave 1st Floor, New Haven, CT, 06519, USA.
Daniel H WizniaDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, 800 Howard Ave 1st Floor, New Haven, CT, 06519, USA.
Yale University · US

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NIA Short Term Research Training: Students in Health Professional SchoolsT35AG049685 · NIA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Sarwat I Chaudhry, Terri R. Fried · 2016 to 2026
$804k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NIA NIH HHS T35 AG049685
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPolymethyl methacrylate, or "bone cement," can be used intraoperatively to replace damaged or diseased bone and to deliver local antibiotics. 3D printed molds allow surgeons to form personalized and custom shapes with bone cement. One factor hindering the clinical utility of anatomically accurate 3D printed molds is that cured bone cement can be difficult to remove due to the strong adhesion between the mold and the bone cement. One way to reduce the adhesion between the 3D printed mold and the cured bone cement is with the use of a surface coating, such as a lubricant. This study sought to determine the optimal surface coating to prevent bone cement adhesion to 3D printed molds that could be utilized within a sterile operating room environment.

methodsHemispheric molds were 3D printed using a stereolithography printer. The molds were coated with four sterile surface coatings available in most operating theatres (light mineral oil, bacitracin ointment, lubricating jelly, and ultrasound transmission gel). Polymethyl methacrylate with tobramycin antibiotic was mixed and poured into the molds. The amount of force needed to "push out" the cured bone cement from the molds was measured to determine the efficacy of each surface coating. Tukey's multiple comparison test was performed to compare the results of the pushout test.

resultsThe average pushout force for the surface coatings, in increasing order, were as follows (mean ± standard deviation) --- bacitracin ointment: 9.10 ± 6.68 N, mineral oil: 104.93 ± 69.92 N, lubricating jelly: 147.76 ± 63.77 N, control group: 339.31 ± 305.20 N, ultrasound transmission gel 474.11 ± 94.77 N. Only the bacitracin ointment required significantly less pushout force than the control (p = 0.0123).

conclusionsThe bacitracin ointment was the most effective surface coating, allowing the bone cement to be pushed out of the mold using the least amount of force. In addition, the low standard deviation speaks to the reliability of the bacitracin ointment to reduce mold adhesion compared to the other surface coatings. Given its efficacy as well as its ubiquitous presence in the hospital operating room setting, bacitracin ointment is an excellent choice to prevent adhesion between bone cement and 3D printed molds intraoperatively.

Indexed as

3D printingBone cementOrthopaedic surgeryPersonalized medicine

Identifiers

PMID35960406
PMCPMC9373469
OpenAlexW4291150528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.